How would you define this? DOC "for emergency use only"
Discussion
Now, before anyone jumps on the usual "it doesn't say emergency use only" bandwagon, hear me out!
So it's that time of year for shopping around and whilst finding a new policy for my Dads car, I got a quote from a company I've not heard of before.
Whilst going through the quote page, it offers an upgrade to the driving other cars section included on the policy. For £29.99, he can have comprehensive driving other cars up to £20k/£500 excess BUT it says underneath the price:
"The Vehicle must be used for emergency use only."
No definition is given so I read the policy wording for the cover and it says the cover is valid providing the use of the vehicle is momentary and not regularly used. It defines momentary as:
"Something that is momentary lasts for a very short period of time. To use the
vehicle in a momentary capacity is to use for a short period of time that is not
often or on a continuous basis."
Now, to me, this is deliberately vague. My definition of shory period of time will be different to yours, and possibly to the insurers.
So, how would you read this? It would be handy for him to have, but would hate for him to have a claim rejected for driving the car for 2 hours once because that's (in their eyes) not momentary.
So it's that time of year for shopping around and whilst finding a new policy for my Dads car, I got a quote from a company I've not heard of before.
Whilst going through the quote page, it offers an upgrade to the driving other cars section included on the policy. For £29.99, he can have comprehensive driving other cars up to £20k/£500 excess BUT it says underneath the price:
"The Vehicle must be used for emergency use only."
No definition is given so I read the policy wording for the cover and it says the cover is valid providing the use of the vehicle is momentary and not regularly used. It defines momentary as:
"Something that is momentary lasts for a very short period of time. To use the
vehicle in a momentary capacity is to use for a short period of time that is not
often or on a continuous basis."
Now, to me, this is deliberately vague. My definition of shory period of time will be different to yours, and possibly to the insurers.
So, how would you read this? It would be handy for him to have, but would hate for him to have a claim rejected for driving the car for 2 hours once because that's (in their eyes) not momentary.
We would need to see sample wording on the insurance certificate, since this ultimately determines whether they're insured or not for RTA compliance.
If the insurance offered anything over and above that, it would depend on the wording of the T&Cs, and they would need to be reasonable.
If the insurance offered anything over and above that, it would depend on the wording of the T&Cs, and they would need to be reasonable.
paul_c123 said:
We would need to see sample wording on the insurance certificate, since this ultimately determines whether they're insured or not for RTA compliance.
If the insurance offered anything over and above that, it would depend on the wording of the T&Cs, and they would need to be reasonable.
Sadly I don't have that to hand as we haven't proceeded but if we do I'll get it.If the insurance offered anything over and above that, it would depend on the wording of the T&Cs, and they would need to be reasonable.
The "Something that is momentary lasts for a very short period of time. To use the
vehicle in a momentary capacity is to use for a short period of time that is not
often or on a continuous basis." Is directly from the policy wording itself, with no other wording to clarify it. I think it's deliberately vague, as one persons momentary/short period of time could be anothers absolutely ages!
Emergency use cannot be defined. That's why it's not written into the policy. It's purely subjective. One person's emergency will be someone else's "I'll get around to it".
Running dying kid to hospital? Running very unwell kid to hospital? Running slightly unwell kid to doctors? Running dying cat to vet? Running unwell cat to vet? Running cat that sneezed twice to vet? Unwell hamster?
It's complete nonsense.
Running dying kid to hospital? Running very unwell kid to hospital? Running slightly unwell kid to doctors? Running dying cat to vet? Running unwell cat to vet? Running cat that sneezed twice to vet? Unwell hamster?
It's complete nonsense.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Emergency use cannot be defined. That's why it's not written into the policy. It's purely subjective. One person's emergency will be someone else's "I'll get around to it".
Unwell hamster?
Made me chuckle, well done Twig.Unwell hamster?
OP.
As other have said including the oracle (of all that is insurance) above. I would say, think "what if" and the "if" is should it end up in court.
What I mean is, could you stand in front of the man/woman in his grey wig and justify your actions as an emergency?
If the answer is yes, than YOU have passed the standard for "emergency use only" and you are free to drive.
Powerfully Built Company Directors Secretary said:
Sadly I don't have that to hand as we haven't proceeded but if we do I'll get it.
Is there some difficulty getting insurance for your Dad such that you would use a company you've never heard of? Having such iffy terms makes me think they wouldn't be easy to deal with for a claim..
As for the term itself, I was told many years ago by a broker that DOC was for 'emergency' use - the example he made up was moving another car at a party that was blocking yours in, where the owner had had too much to drink.
When you drill down into the 'driving other vehicles', it does seem a bit random.
Clearly they are keen that any 'regular' driver should be named on the policy.
With my bike policy, (or maybe it was the last one?), there is some guff in the policy booklet about not covering bikes owned by family members living at your address.
I don't think my typical use of riding other people's bikes, a quick spin up the valley and back, would count as an emergency? Maybe it's an emergency once you're stopped by the plod?
Clearly they are keen that any 'regular' driver should be named on the policy.
With my bike policy, (or maybe it was the last one?), there is some guff in the policy booklet about not covering bikes owned by family members living at your address.
I don't think my typical use of riding other people's bikes, a quick spin up the valley and back, would count as an emergency? Maybe it's an emergency once you're stopped by the plod?
At the other end of the scale most HNW Insurance policies don’t even mention the word emergency when it comes to describing who can drive what on your policy but just makes it clear on the certificate who cannot.
It also makes it clear what other cars you can drive.
I would echo the comments that if you have never heard of the Insurer then do some digging.
Paying the cheapest price can be an expensive mistake should you be unfortunate enough to have to claim but obviously like everything there is a sensible compromise.
It also makes it clear what other cars you can drive.
I would echo the comments that if you have never heard of the Insurer then do some digging.
Paying the cheapest price can be an expensive mistake should you be unfortunate enough to have to claim but obviously like everything there is a sensible compromise.
This sounds like an enhanced DOC cover (fully comp instead of TPO) something similar that some HNW and LNW Flux policies offer if it's for emergency use only then I suspect it's definitely the mentalists at Flux.
Enhanced DOC cover is common on fleet policies, and for emergency use situations where an employee moves a vehicle that is blocking the factory gates for example.
Enhanced DOC cover is common on fleet policies, and for emergency use situations where an employee moves a vehicle that is blocking the factory gates for example.
vikingaero said:
This sounds like an enhanced DOC cover (fully comp instead of TPO) something similar that some HNW and LNW Flux policies offer if it's for emergency use only then I suspect it's definitely the mentalists at Flux.
As a broker I can quite see Flux using Insurers that some of us have also never heard of !Powerfully Built Company Directors Secretary said:
Now, before anyone jumps on the usual "it doesn't say emergency use only" bandwagon, hear me out!
So it's that time of year for shopping around and whilst finding a new policy for my Dads car, I got a quote from a company I've not heard of before.
Whilst going through the quote page, it offers an upgrade to the driving other cars section included on the policy. For £29.99, he can have comprehensive driving other cars up to £20k/£500 excess BUT it says underneath the price:
"The Vehicle must be used for emergency use only."
No definition is given so I read the policy wording for the cover and it says the cover is valid providing the use of the vehicle is momentary and not regularly used. It defines momentary as:
"Something that is momentary lasts for a very short period of time. To use the
vehicle in a momentary capacity is to use for a short period of time that is not
often or on a continuous basis."
Now, to me, this is deliberately vague. My definition of shory period of time will be different to yours, and possibly to the insurers.
So, how would you read this? It would be handy for him to have, but would hate for him to have a claim rejected for driving the car for 2 hours once because that's (in their eyes) not momentary.
Sounds like a great bit of cover. Give us £30 for a policy that we say you can’t actually use in any useful way at all, or for more than a fraction of a second. May as well ask them if they do end of the world cover too, seems about as useful. So it's that time of year for shopping around and whilst finding a new policy for my Dads car, I got a quote from a company I've not heard of before.
Whilst going through the quote page, it offers an upgrade to the driving other cars section included on the policy. For £29.99, he can have comprehensive driving other cars up to £20k/£500 excess BUT it says underneath the price:
"The Vehicle must be used for emergency use only."
No definition is given so I read the policy wording for the cover and it says the cover is valid providing the use of the vehicle is momentary and not regularly used. It defines momentary as:
"Something that is momentary lasts for a very short period of time. To use the
vehicle in a momentary capacity is to use for a short period of time that is not
often or on a continuous basis."
Now, to me, this is deliberately vague. My definition of shory period of time will be different to yours, and possibly to the insurers.
So, how would you read this? It would be handy for him to have, but would hate for him to have a claim rejected for driving the car for 2 hours once because that's (in their eyes) not momentary.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
SitCet said:
Unwell hamster might well be an emergency. Perhaps it's in a place it shouldn't be, and this is what caused it to be unwell.
Maybe it's been involved in a terrible accident........fell asleep at the wheel?https://youtu.be/quqGKDqi3Yw?si=dNJyZ08S5ahkiUVt
alscar said:
itcaptainslow said:
I've got one of these policies with Flux, and I've just checked the policy booklet. Nowhere is it mentioned the cover is for "emergency" use only, or words to that effect.
Quite possible as depends on the policy and Insurer - which isn t Flux. Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff